William Of Orange Research Articles

Loyal or Rebellious? Protestant Associations in England 1584–1696

The current historiography of oaths of association in early modern England mainly concentrates on the two oaths which bookend the period discussed in this article, the 1584 association in defence of Elizabeth I and the 1696 association for William III. Generally, the verdict of historians on these two associations has been negative. Christopher Haigh, paraphrasing Sir John Neale, describes the Elizabethan association as a 'political vigilante group, pledged to use lynch law to safeguard the throne'.1 The association of loyalty to William III has come in for even harsher criticism, described by John Kenyon as a 'bitter faction instrument' imposed on the pretext of a flimsy assassination plot.2 In both cases these associations have been seen as exceptional responses to moments of crisis. However, more recently Patrick Collinson, Ann Hughes and Mark Knights have all noted that oaths of association were promoted and imposed in the 1620s, 1640s and 1680s. These historians agree that these documents were not, first and foremost, designed to protect the person of the monarch but were instituted to secure the Protestant state. For Patrick Collinson, the 1584 association fits in with schemes for an interim republic to ensure that the crown passed to a Protestant successor in the event of Elizabeth's death.3 Ann Hughes sees the Elizabethan association as providing the opponents of Charles I with an earlier, English equivalent of the Scottish National Covenant.4 Mark Knights has shown how proposals for an oath of association during the crisis over succession 1678-83 became linked to demands for the exclusion of James II from the throne.5This article follows the work of Collinson, Hughes and Knights by unravelling the radical implications of oaths of association in this period. By dealing chronologically with the proposals for and implementation of these documents, it will be demonstrated that oaths of association were tendered with even more frequency than these historians have realised. It will also be shown that these were all tests imposed at times of particular Protestant crisis, that they were associations which accepted the possibility of the death of the reigning monarch and that they usually attempted to deal with this eventuality by making provision for a temporary republican government. This article will also explore the ways in which, especially in the 1640s, the notion of an oath of association became intertwined with the idea of a national covenant.6 As will be made clear, this carries with it important implications for political allegiance, defining loyalty confessionally and making obedience to the monarch conditional on his or her readiness to defend the faith. Under Elizabeth, the consequences of this redefinition of allegiance were muted. Under a more religiously suspect ruler like Charles I, or an outright papist like James II, the king's apparent inability or unwillingness to defend the faith became not only a grounds for resisting him, but also for deposing him. There were of course differences between these various oaths of association and the ends to which they were put. The point of this article is not to suggest that there was a 'high road' to the Civil War which began in 1584, but to argue that there were intellectual legacies from the end of the Elizabethan era which played an important part in English resistance movements of the 1640s and 1680s.IThe association of 1584 was a response to genuine anxiety about the security of the Queen's person. William of Orange, having survived one Catholic assassination attempt, had been murdered that year and an English conspiracy, the Throckmorton plot, had recently been uncovered. Parliament was not in session and there was a clear danger of a political vacuum should Elizabeth be killed.7 To deal with this situation, in October Walsingham and Burghley set about drawing up an 'Instrument of Association', it seems without the Queen's knowledge. In its final form the association bound those taking it to give their 'lyves, landes and goodes in her defence' and promise that they would 'revenge, all maner of persons of what estate soever they shalbe and their abettors, that shall attempte by any acte counsell or consent to any thinge that shall tende to the harme of her Maties royall person'. …

L'Irlande, la France et l'Europe en 1689-1690 : les négociations de M. le Comte d'Avaux en Irlande

The letters that the Count d'Avaux - Louis XIV's ambassador extraordinary to James II during the latter 's stay in Ireland in 1689 -sent to his master, reveal that what really explains the final defeat of the Stuart king at the Boyne, in the struggle between himself and William of Orange, has more to do with the divisions and rivalries that break out within the Jacobite camp than with any supposed superiority of William's armies.

Grub Street Commerce: Advertisements and Politics in the Early Modern British Press

In mid‐May 1689 James Welwood, Scottish‐born physician and polemicist for the dual monarchs William III and Mary II, inaugurated a popular journal of opinion, Mercurius Reformatus or the New Observator. Dr. Welwood's periodical was only one among the dozens of newspapers and mercuries that Londoners read after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the culmination of events that removed James II, a Roman Catholic, from the throne and replaced him with his Protestant elder daughter Mary and her Dutch husband‐first cousin, William of Orange. While “mercury,” an allusion to the Roman god of information, eloquence, and wit, was a common publishing appellation, Welwood viewed his periodical as unique, embracing historical as well as contemporary events, and therefore superior to any ordinary newspaper. He also considered himself exceptional. Admittedly, not many political writers had Welwood's admirable credentials: multiple university degrees, familiarity with the court of William and Mary as a royal physician, and active service in medicine on reform‐minded wartime commissions. Although Dr. Welwood never affixed his name to the masthead of Mercurius Reformatus, believing that journalism was beneath his professional standing, his reportorial legacy is significant. Moreover, beyond the columns in Mercurius Reformatus, its companion advertisements yield a valuable archive of remarkable particulars about the views of its founder and the audience it reached. During his publication's two‐and‐a‐half‐year run, Welwood used the advertisements to reinforce his articles in order to promote his own political, religious, and medical convictions.1

Wilfrid Prest. Albion Ascendant: English History, 1660-1815. (The Short Oxford History of the Modem World.) New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. Pp. xx, 363. $27.95. ISBN 0-19-820418-3.

Wilfrid Prest. Albion Ascendant: English History, 1660-1815. (The Short Oxford History of the Modem World.) New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. Pp. xx, 363. $27.95. ISBN 0-19-820418-3. - Volume 32 Issue 1

An unknown book of William of Orange discovered

An unknown book of William of Orange discovered

The Jacobite Chapel Royal at Saint-Germain-En-Laye

The Jacobite Court was established at Saint-Germain-en-Laye at the beginning of 1689, following the successful invasion of England by William of Orange. At the time few people expected the Court to remain there for long, but after James II’s defeat in Ireland (1690), and the failure of his planned invasion of England (1692), it became clear that there was little hope of an immediate restoration. In the event the Stuarts were to remain at Saint-Germain-en-Laye for a quarter of a century. James II himself died there in 1701. His son James III stayed until 1712, when he was obliged to leave France by the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). The Queen, Mary of Modena, continued to live at Saint-Germain, and presided over the Court, until her death there in May 1718.

William of Orange

William of Orange

Benjamin Reach, William of Orange and the Book of Revelation

L'interpretation de l'Apocalypse de Saint Jean semble occuper une position cle dans le programme theologique de l'Eglise. Ceci est particulierement le cas dans l'Angleterre de l'apres-Reforme ou des individus de toutes les confessions se sont consacres a l'etude des propheties du Livre en les prenant tres au serieux. Benjamin Keach a cherche a relier les evenements anglais de 1688 avec ceux du Livre de la Revelation. Selon lui, l'arrivee de Guillaume d'Orange sur les rives de l'Angleterre et le depart de Jacques II marquent le debut du royaume eschatologique dont le pays est l'epicentre

A Cologne printer working for William of Orange: Godfried Hirtzhorn jun., 1568-72

AbstractThe report of Alva's arrival as Philip II's captain-general and the announcement that all those would be prosecuted who had had any connection with the troubles of 1566 led to a massive emigration from the Netherlands. The leader of the Dutch Revolt, William of Orange, withdrew to Germany in order to lead the rebellion from Dillenburg. In order to do this he chose a highly modern medium: the printing press, which was to play a decisive role in arousing the population to armed resistance against Spanish rule. As his collaborator in the propaganda campaign the Prince selected another fugitive, the town pensionary of Antwerp Jacob van Wesenbeke. The latter soon proved immensely active: in 1568 and 1569, on the orders and at the

De apotheose van de held: Bartholomeus Eggers en het monument voor Jacob van Wassenaer Obdam in Den Haag, I667

AbstractIn I665 Jacob van Wassenaer Obdam, admiral of the Dutch fleet, was killed while waging the Battle of Lowestoft against the English. Almost immediately after Holland's defeat, the States General decided to honour the admiral with a monument. In the light of this defeat and the harsh criticism of Van Wassenaer's leadership, the initiative may be seen as a political ploy to camouflage the debacle. A design submitted by the sculptor Rombout Verhulst was rejected in favour of one by the younger and less experienced Bartholomeus Eggers, who was given a fairly unexpected chance to submit an alternative design. Posthumous claims, recorded in various archivalia, that the originator of the design was C. Moninx, a painter of The Hague, appear to be unfounded: Moninx' heirs were probably out for financial gain, acting in the same spirit as the late painter, whose reputation was already tarnished by accusations of forgery shortly before his death. In any case, in view of Moninx' artistic achievements it seems unlikely that he would have been capable of providing such a design for the Van Wassenaer monument. Furthermore, his name does not occur in official documents of the States General pertaining to the commission, the specifications and the fee for the monument. In terms of form and iconography, the Van Wassenaer monument is exceptional. The choice of a splendid canopied monument reflects the aspiration to emulate Hendrick de Keyser's tomb for William of Orange. In opting for this form, moreover, the designer was employing the most important motif of royal exequies in I6th and I7th-century Europe: the catafalque. This architectural motif, derived from Roman burial rites, was the ephemeral focus of many royal funerals; since the death of Emperor Charles V (I558) such catafalques had been appearing all over Europe, notably for deceased Hapsburg monarchs. Illustrated descriptions of such exequies were partly responsible for making catafalque types widely known. The use of this regal funerary motif in the monument for Van Wassenaer Obdam reflects the ambition of the body that ordered it - the States General - to present itself as an able, sovereign power in the Netherlands. The iconography of the monument is exceptional in that Van Wassenaer is shown as a standing, living naval commander. Eggers may well have had in mind the series of sculpted portraits of four Stadtholders of Orange in Huis ten Bosch at The Hague, made by François Dieussart in about I646-I647. With this standing portrait form Van Wassenaer was honoured like an Antique hero, as implied by the epithet 'alter Hercules' in the inscription. The group behind the hero, consisting of Fame and an eagle with a globe and thunderbolts in its claws, may be interpreted as an image of consecratio or apotheosis in keeping with Roman tradition. Eggers or his patrons could have found a direct model for this unusual iconography in the Antique manner in Joachim Oudaen's Roomse Moogentheid of I664. States General patronage as embodied in monuments to naval heroes peaked shortly after I65o: during the Stadtholderless Period (I65I-I672) the most numerous and most important tombs for naval heros were paid for by the public purse. As well as representing the nation's tribute to the heroes who had laid down their lives for their country, these monuments could be understood as political (anti-Stadtholder) propaganda for the Republican cause. By causing public monuments to be built, the States General rendered manifest its function as a sovereign power and gave form to the 'dignity, glory and honour of the nation', concepts previously embodied by the Stadtholders of Orange. To a certain extent naval heroes, as exempla virtutis, could compensate for the loss of a Stadtholder as the personification of the nation. Their funerals were spectacles on a par with those of the Stadtholders and thus likewise some compensation for the lack of viceregal pomp. In Van Wassenaer's case there was a more compelling reason for a monument than otherwise: it enabled the States General to gloss over its admiral's defeat and its own consequent loss of face by presenting the dead commander as an Antique hero, in keeping with the finest funerary traditions, under a catafalque. That they were successful is borne out by a passage in an English tourist's travel diary of I705, in which Van Wassenaer is described as a valiant hero.

Scotland's sovereignty asserted: the debate over the Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707

Scotland's sovereignty asserted: the debate over the Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707* With the parliamentary union between Scotland and England in 1707, two independent realms, the separate crowns of which had forjust over a century been worn by the same monarchs, became one United Kingdom of Great Britain. A new political entity, which was to form the basis of the British Empire, was born. The successful completion of the negotiations and the passage of the Acts of Union in both parliaments united the two crowns and theoretically entailed the dissolution of two national parliaments and the creation of a supra-national parliament—the parliament of Great Britain. But the new 'British' parliament was in fact simply an enlarged English parliament,towhich a limited number of Scots members were admitted. As the Scottish historian William Ferguson has noted, 'Scotland lost her sovereignty in both theory and practice, in theory so did England, but not in practice'.1 The union was simply one possible solution to the perennial problem of Anglo-Scottish relations which had remained strained after the Union of Crowns of 1603. This Regal union had disadvantaged the northern kingdom; when the Stuarts inherited the English throne the political centre of gravity moved down to London. For most of the seventeenth century British kings had put the interests of their wealthier English kingdom before those of Scotland. By the end of the century, Scotland, embroiled in England's continental wars and suffering from the effects of the English navigation acts and the Darien fiasco, was on the brink of financial disaster. As the wealth and power of the court increased under William of Orange and then Anne, so did Scottish resentment of the impact of English policy on Scottish affairs. By 1703 the relationship between the kingdoms had reached breaking point. The death of Anne's last surviving heir in 1700 had opened up the vexed question of the succession. The English Act of Settlement of 1701, which accepted the Hanoverian claim, had angered the Scots by its arrogant assumption that Scotland would automatically follow England's lead in the matter, and the resumption of war with France—a war into which Anne had entered Scotland without consulting her Scottish parliament—further fuelled resentment. Union * I am grateful to Dr John Robertson for pointing out several errors of interpretation and directing m y attention towards important aspects of the Scottish intellectual context which I had neglected in my original analysis. The errors and omissions that remain are m y own. Thanks are also due to Glen Burgess, for asking the right questions, to Andrew Sharp for his valuable criticism and advice, and to the anonymous referees for their very useful comments. 1 Ferguson, cited in P. H. Scott, The Union of Scotland and England in Contemporary Documents with a Commentary, Edinburgh, 1979, p. 53. P A R E R G O N ns 11.2, December 1993 28 B. McPhail negotiations, encouraged by William and focussing on the possibility of free trade, had begun in 1702, but had rapidly ground to a halt, mainly because of England's lack of enthusiasm. Anti-court and, by extension, anti-English feeling scaled such heights in Scotland that it briefly united the country's warring factions and manifested itself in political action which threatened the stability of both nations. The Scottish election of 1703, called reluctantly because of a tax boycott and the need to raise supply, had returned a House in which the court party was seriously weakened. The succession question gave a briefly united opposition a golden opportunity to redefine the constitutional relationship with England in Scotland's favour. Its parliamentary majority resulted in the successful passage of the Act of Security and Succession, reluctantly given the Royal Assent in 1704. The Act declared that the Union of Crowns would cease on the death of Anne unless Parliament had by that time placed limitations on the monarchy sufficient to protect Scotland from future English interference through the court.2 In addition, the Act provided for the regular mustering of the militia. Scotland had thrown down the gauntlet, and England lost no time in picking it up. She would countenance neither...

Jacques II et l'Expédition d'Irlande d'après les dépêches du Comte d'Avaux, ambassadeur extraordinaire de Louis XIV

Jean-Antoine de Mesmes, Count d'Avaux, was one of the most distinguished French diplomat in his own day. Following the invasion of England by William of Orange and the implementation of the Franco-Jacobite plans to regain control of the British Isles through a large scale campaign in Ireland, d'Avaux was chosen to accompany James II as Ambassador Extraordinary. His mission which lasted only twelve months was an extremely difficult one and his despatches throw much light on the obstacles which defeated the Jacobite cause : the irresolution of King James, the incompetence and jealousies of his courtiers, the feuds between Irish and English Jacobites, the lack of military supplies and fighting spirit, the intrigues of Lauzun, etc.

De La Penha v. Her Majesty in Right of Newfoundland

Territory — Acquisition of territory — Treaty of Paris, 1763 — Cession — Acquisition by Britain of sovereignty over Labrador from France — Territory subsequently transferred to Newfoundland — Plaintiff claiming title to land in Labrador — Alleged grant from Prince William of Orange — Whether effective occupation includes possession and administration of government — Whether territory acquired by prescription from HollandTreaties — Effect — Treaty of Paris, 1763 — Acquisition by Britain of sovereignty and ownership over Labrador — Whether leading to obliteration of any property rights acquired before the Treaty — 671Whether exception in case of existing claims brought to the attention of the Crown and acknowledged by it — The law of Canada

Images of Queen Mary II, 1689-95*

At the time of the Revolution of 1688-89 in England, for the first time since the accession of Queen Elizabeth I one hundred and thirty years earlier, a woman had a claim to the crown of England in her own right—Princess Mary of Orange, wife of Prince William of Orange of the Netherlands and the elder daughter of James II, the Catholic king of England, by his first and Protestant wife. That claim was one possible solution to the question of who should head the new government, but it was finally decided to create a dual monarchy, a constitutional arrangement unique in the nation's history. Under it the prince and princess of Orange became King William III and Queen Mary II of England, with administrative power vested in William alone. Although regarded as a regnant queen, one of only six regnant queens in the nation's history, Mary, in fact, received no substantive regal power.

The Orangist Conspiracy against James II

The 'Glorious' Revolution of i688 had its seamy side. It was far from being a spontaneous uprising against an unpopular king. James II was not sent packing by the mass of his subjects. On the contrary, a majority of the political nation probably wanted him to stay. Even those who rose up against him in i688 were not necessarily desiring a revolution. One of them who took an active part in precipitating his downfall, the earl of Danby, later regretted the outcome of his actions. As his son, who became a Jacobite, put it in I7I5: 'I can take God to witness that I had not a thought when I engaged in it (and I am sure my father neither) that the prince of Orange's landing would end in deposing the King'. Other activists in that year had different aims. William Gee, who had fled to Holland in I687, came over with the Dutch troops in December i 688, having sworn 'that they would never lay down arms till they had made The Prince of Orange King'.1 What these activists had in common was that they were prepared to play the Orange card againstJames II. Somehow or other the prince was to be employed to put pressure on the king, either to get him to change his pro-Catholic policies, or to remove him from the throne. In order to obtain William's intervention they had to co-operate in a conspiracy. In the event, those conspirators who hoped that William would oustJames succeeded perhaps beyond their wildest dreams, for the king gave up without a fight. The Orangist conspiracy itself was the single most important cause of the king's flight. Quite when the conspiracy began is, by the very nature of such plots, impossible to establish. It seems certain that there were very few conspirators involved in the Argyll and Monmouth rebellions of i685. Apparently they could rely on the active support of only a handful of plotters, including the professionals Robert Ferguson and John Wildman. That neither rebellion stood a chance of success might have given pause to the plans of any who at that stage were contemplating a conspiracy involving William of Orange. Historians have disagreed on the dating of an Orangist scheme. According to the late Lucille Pinkham, William's invasion 'was the result of plans laid carefully over many years'.2 These plans came to fruition, she claimed, in i686, and she attributed such significance to Dijkvelt's visit to England early in I687 as laying the foundations for the subsequent intervention. Certainly the Dutch envoy made some useful contacts. In the words of Bishop Burnet, 'He desired that those who wished well to their religion

Who Dubbed It “The Glorious Revolution?”

It was not very glorious at first, at least to many English people of the late seventeenth century. With a king of undoubted legitimacy squeezed out and a new, albeit related monarch installed and recognized by Parliament, the transaction shook government, nation and church alike. It left Jacobite and non-juring splinters all round. The Revolution, happening in fulfillment of ideals of exclusionist Whigs, did not entirely satisfy those partisans, who soon learned that they could not control their masterful king, William III. As for the Tories, their consciences ached due to their resistance to a divinely-appointed sovereign. Few highly-placed Englishmen were comfortable with their need to call in a foreigner to help them solve their domestic squabbles. Indeed, one writer, reflecting on the letter inviting the Prince of Orange to invade England, thought it would have been “more glorious … to assist our undoubted Soveraign [sic], then to suffer him to be dethroned, solely because he is a Roman Catholic.”Twentieth-century historians called the Revolution other names than “glorious.” It has been dubbed a “sensible,” a “model,” a “moral,” a “respectable,” a “palace,” and simply the English Revolution. All agreed that it was indeed a Revolution, and they themselves were in agreement with some early writers who were contemporary with the event. The Orange Gazette, at the very end of the year 1688, reported on “the Revolutions that had occurred.” The historian Nicholas Tindal wrote that William of Orange himself, in a speech before the House of Lords, spoke of “this late Revolution.” Considerable discussion ensued in Parliament and in pamphlets as to whether William conquered James, or whether the king had abdicated, or had deserted his kingdom. But little question with contemporaries: there was a Revolution.

Communicating an English Revolution to the Colonies, 1688–1689

TheAmericaof Boston, bound from its home port to London in December of 1688, began taking soundings that were political as well as nautical as it approached England. Two weeks before an English port was reached, the first news was heard from a shipmaster returning from Barbados, who shared what he had heard earlier from an English vessel out of Galloway. The passengers of theAmericawere told that William of Orange had landed at Torbay early in November, that the prince had taken England, and that King James was dead. The truth, the guess, and the false rumor all came aboard with equal credibility. They were only four days from port before they learned that the king was not dead, though the source was a five-week-old report from the Canary Islands. The occupants of theAmericacould still be buffeted by strange and disturbing tales when they were only one day from Dover. The master of a pink that was two weeks out of Liverpool gave the date of the prince's landing as three weeks later than the event, gave William's force as an astounding 50,000 men and 600 ships, and told the apprehensive colonials that the drowned bodies of Englishmen were being found tied back-to-back and that French men-of-war were cruising with commissions from King James II. All this worrisome “news” proved erroneous but accompanied an account that would prove correct, that the king was not dead but had fled to France.

Some sources for a history of English Socinianism a bibliography of 17th century English Socinian writings

In 1697, the Presbyterian, William Bates, presented an address, on behalf of some dissenting ministers, to William of Orange. In this, he called for measures against the Socinians and Deists, and, in particular, for the banning of the publication of Socinian works. Bates' address was published in JOHN HOWE, Sermon Preech'd on the Day of Thanksgiving (1698). On 17th February, 1698, the House of Commons presented an address to the King, We do further, in all humility, beseech Your Majesty, that Your Majesty would give such effectual order, as to Your Royal Wisdom shall seem fit, for the suppressing all pernicious books and pamphlets, which contain in them impious doctrines against the Holy Trinity, and other fundamental articles of our Faith, tending to the subversion of the Christian Religion; and that the authors and publishers thereof may be discounted and punished.

The bookbindings of William of Orange

The bookbindings of William of Orange

Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: 6 Inundations and the Mild Winter 1672–73 Help Protect Amsterdam from French Conquest

Abstract In the 17th century, the small Dutch Republic, the union of seven provinces of the northern part of the Low Countries. was the most important country in the world in matters of finance, commerce, and shipping (as well as in the arts, especially painting). Within the Republic. Amsterdam wielded most of the economic power. Louis XIV, King of France, whose rule was characterized by expansionist tendencies, began a war against the Republic in June 1672 (war actually was declared in April of that year). France and her allies, eastern neighbors of the Republic, sent an invading army of about 150 000, as against a hastily collected and poorly trained defense force of 50 000–60 000 Dutch led by Prince William of Orange, who became William III of Holland in July 1672 and King William III of England in 1689. The spring of 1672 was dry and, as a result, the water level in the rivers was low, a fact that facilitated the crossing of water courses by the hostile forces. Within less than a month, most of the ea...